{"id":157,"date":"2011-11-22T09:06:51","date_gmt":"2011-11-22T16:06:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=157"},"modified":"2011-11-22T09:06:51","modified_gmt":"2011-11-22T16:06:51","slug":"in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/","title":{"rendered":"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Terrence L. Brookie &#8211; November 14, 2011<\/p>\n<p>On October 25, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals published its decision in Skyline Roofing &amp; Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Ziolkowski Constr., Inc., which addressed, among other issues, the sufficiency of a roofing subcontractor\u2019s antitrust claim against a general contractor and local union.<\/p>\n<p>Ziolkowski Construction, Inc., a general contractor, invited non-union subcontractors, including Skyline Roofing &amp; Sheet Metal Co., Inc., to bid on the roofing package for a new middle school.\u00a0 Skyline was the low bid for the roof portion of the project.\u00a0 Ziolkowski and the school corporation began receiving complaints and threats about the use of Skyline on the project.\u00a0 After entering into a contract with the school corporation, the local union made a post-bid contribution of funds to a union subcontractor to make up the difference between its bid and the lower bid of Skyline.\u00a0 Despite Skyline having provided the lowest bid, the roofing subcontract was awarded to the union subcontractor.<\/p>\n<p>Skyline brought a lawsuit against Ziolkowski and the local union alleging, in part, violation of Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act.\u00a0 Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act was created to prevent fraud and collusion in the letting of contracts and to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.<\/p>\n<p>The trial court dismissed Skyline\u2019s antitrust claim.\u00a0 On appeal, Skyline argued that the facts as alleged in its complaint show that (1) Skyline\u2019s bid was $585,216 lower than the union subcontractor\u2019s bid; (2) Ziolkowski informed Skyline that Skyline had submitted the lowest bid for the roofing subcontract and that Ziolkowski had used Skyline\u2019s bid to prepare its bid; (3) unions and union contractors threatened both Ziolkowski and the school corporation that they would picket, disrupt, and walk off the project unless a union roofing subcontractor was hired; and (4) Ziolkowski hired the union subcontractor only after the local union made a post-bid contribution of funds to offset the difference between the bids.<\/p>\n<p>Ziolkowski argued that \u201cin response to [the] threats, [it] allegedly hired an equal-priced union subcontractor, instead of non-union Skyline.\u201d\u00a0 The court rejected this argument and concluded that the union subcontractor was not an \u201cequal-priced\u201d subcontractor.\u00a0 It was only after bidding had closed on the project that the union contractor, having received funds from the local union, was able to offer Ziolkowski the same bid price as Skyline.\u00a0 Most notably, the court held that this in itself is a sufficient allegation of a scheme to exclude Skyline and a restraint on free competition.\u00a0 The court reversed the dismissal of Skyline\u2019s antitrust claims.<\/p>\n<p>via <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=8e4fa20d-d07d-49f3-8d48-b07ac6bdf834&amp;utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&amp;utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Other+states+section&amp;utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&amp;utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-11-22&amp;utm_term=\">In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Terrence L. Brookie &#8211; November 14, 2011 On October 25, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals published its decision in Skyline Roofing &amp; Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Ziolkowski Constr., Inc., which addressed, among other issues, the sufficiency of a roofing subcontractor\u2019s antitrust claim against a general contractor and local union. Ziolkowski Construction, Inc., a&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-contracts","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act - Lexology - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor\u2019s-claim-under-indiana\u2019s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act - Lexology - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Terrence L. Brookie &#8211; November 14, 2011 On October 25, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals published its decision in Skyline Roofing &amp; Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Ziolkowski Constr., Inc., which addressed, among other issues, the sufficiency of a roofing subcontractor\u2019s antitrust claim against a general contractor and local union. Ziolkowski Construction, Inc., a&hellip; Continue reading In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor\u2019s-claim-under-indiana\u2019s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-22T16:06:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-22T16:06:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\"},\"wordCount\":452,\"commentCount\":20,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Contracts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\",\"name\":\"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act - Lexology - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-22T16:06:51+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act - Lexology - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor\u2019s-claim-under-indiana\u2019s-antitrust-act-lexology\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act - Lexology - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Terrence L. Brookie &#8211; November 14, 2011 On October 25, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals published its decision in Skyline Roofing &amp; Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Ziolkowski Constr., Inc., which addressed, among other issues, the sufficiency of a roofing subcontractor\u2019s antitrust claim against a general contractor and local union. Ziolkowski Construction, Inc., a&hellip; Continue reading In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor\u2019s-claim-under-indiana\u2019s-antitrust-act-lexology\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-22T16:06:51+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act &#8211; Lexology","datePublished":"2011-11-22T16:06:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/"},"wordCount":452,"commentCount":20,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Construction Contracts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/","name":"In Court of Appeals addresses sufficiency of contractor\u2019s claim under Indiana\u2019s Antitrust Act - Lexology - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-22T16:06:51+00:00","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/in-court-of-appeals-addresses-sufficiency-of-contractor%e2%80%99s-claim-under-indiana%e2%80%99s-antitrust-act-lexology\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-2x","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}